"Whatever one thinks of the Ferguson case, this is a rather problematic formulation, in my opinion."

My observation was just a flipped approach to saying "so far, the evidence reflects that the police officer behaved, at best, in a criminally negligent fashion." So far, in the public domain, there is what he told a friend, who in turn disseminated it in a radio (?) interview. And his story does not line up with all the other evidence, including that of many witnesses.

"But our criminal justice system requires more than that; if i'm to be convicted, it requires positive proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, that i DID violate the law."

Please note that we have not yet even entered the phase/territory of an indictment. Talking about the standard required to convict is not relevant at this point. The prosecutor has decided that there is probable cause to proceed (indeed, there is far more than probable cause). Standard required to convict will become relevant only if and when charges are handed down. This officer is already receiving light years beyond treatment any average citizen would receive (and that is the institutional organism at work ... to be expected). Were he not possessed of a badge, he'd have been indicted in short order. I suspect that'd be true even if there'd been video that captured every detail.

The prosecutor certainly is going above and beyond by, in effect, presenting a dry run of the case and the only component missing being the defense. That is a political calculation instead of a legal or practical necessity. Indeed, the prosecutor has already signaled his office will do that which is unheard of: release audio of the proceedings if the man is not indicted. One presumes this is so that people will understand that it is the grand jury members people should blame, and not him.
51

But there can be no doubt that we have, somehow, created a society where young black men are seen as a threat. How we undo that, I just don't know.

I'm not sure if there's anything the government can do to change how people see other people. But there is something the government can do to curb these killings -- actually investigate them, and prosecute them harshly when the cops didn't have a good reason to shoot. Right now, I think DAs are often cozy with cops and reluctant to prosecute except when they're forced to by pressure. Perhaps Federal prosecutions, for Civil Rights violations, are warranted in some of these cases, when the local DA isn't interested. Maybe there are other options as well.

But I don't believe that young black males present 21 times the threat to police officers that young white males do. This isn't "young black males" compared to the rest of society -- it's young black males compared to young white males.
52

My observation was just a flipped approach to saying "so far, the evidence reflects that the police officer behaved, at best, in a criminally negligent fashion."

But the flipping is important, because it reflects a flipping of a fundamental idea about how justice should work.

If there is evidence that he broke the law, that's one thing, and the prosecutor and the grand jury and (if it comes to that) the trial jury is supposed to take all of that evidence into account. But saying that "there's no evidence that he didn't break the law" is something else entirely. It's not how we discuss culpability in a society that presumes innocence.
53

But there is something the government can do to curb these killings -- actually investigate them, and prosecute them harshly when the cops didn't have a good reason to shoot.

I think what gets me about all of this is not that some of these incidents happen, but that there seems, in so many cases, to be insufficient concern among those in authority about taking concrete steps to punish police misconduct or to change police culture in order to reduce incidents like this. If police knew that excessive force and other types of misconduct were considered unacceptable, not just by tree-hugging liberals and government-hating libertarians, but by their own colleagues and bosses and district attorneys, and that it would be punished with termination and/or criminal prosecution, they might be less likely to engage in such behavior.

And this is one area where the argument about most cops being good cops falls down a bit, in my opinion. I think that most cops probably are decent people who want to do their job properly, but the problem is that even the good cops—whether regular patrol cops or high-ranking officers—often seem unwilling to push for strong, independent investigations, and often seem more interested in holding the blue wall together than in actually seeing justice done. Those cops shouldn't complain when the public begins to see them as just another part of the problem.
54

I clicked, and saw an obvious and egregious abuse by cop. Thirteen months later, the innocent black (a 5-year miltary veteran) was offered a plea: year's probation with drug testing (to see if he's still abusing iced tea?), and some community service. Beatty was inclined to reject the offer at his June 2014 court date; Google showed me no update.

I don't now if police abuse is growing worse--or more Americans are hearing about it.

Most mornings, going to work, my bus driver & one of his passengers dissect the news story of the day. (They are both articulate African-American gentlemen of middle years.) Sometimes they discuss something truly tragic--the Houston Texans....

The other day, the driver was explaining how he told his daughter to always do the driving when she borrowed his car. (A pretty nice one, I believe.) He explained that, if her boyfriend drove, the police would pull them right over. She let him drive once--and he was pulled over. Nothing bad happened, but she learned how the world still works.

Oh, why aren't all Americans disgusted with such police abuse, which seems to be growing worse and worse?

That's the thing, though: i don't think it is getting worse. It might seem to be, because we see so many of these instances on the news and on the web. But that is largely a function of the fact that we now have so many people with video-capable devices, and because stories like this propagate much more widely in a world of online media.

There is little doubt, though, that shit like this has been happening pretty much forever. In fact, hard as this might be to believe, it might actually be better now than it used to be, simply because at least some bad cops might think twice about some abuses of their authority in cases where they might be caught on camera.
57

Oh, why aren't all Americans disgusted with such police abuse, which seems to be growing worse and worse?

Because it's black people involved. And not articulate, nice-looking black people like Denzel, but those thugs who be talkin like dis.

People empathize with others who look and sound like they do. The more a group diverges from what's considered "mainstream", the less of an outrage there will be when that group is dicked over, and the more that group will be blamed for what happens to them.
59

How did we get this far without mentioning the elephant gun in the room? I would have expected one of our foreign dopers to do the deed, but maybe they're just gun shy. (You see where I'm going now, don't you?)

Not that I'm trying to excuse the behaviors of the cops in any of these incidents, nor deny the apparent racism likely to be involved in many of them, but a fairly common denominator in these incidents are that the cops are terrified of getting shot out there. Putting myself in their shoes, I can hardly blame them. (For being terrified of being shot, that is, not for the inappropriate, but statistically predictable ways they sometimes respond to that fear.)

Aren't we just paying the price to be expected when our nation is positively awash with guns?

How did we get this far without mentioning the elephant gun in the room? I would have expected one of our foreign dopers to do the deed, but maybe they're just gun shy. (You see where I'm going now, don't you?)

Not that I'm trying to excuse the behaviors of the cops in any of these incidents, nor deny the apparent racism likely to be involved in many of them, but a fairly common denominator in these incidents are that the cops are terrified of getting shot out there. Putting myself in their shoes, I can hardly blame them. (For being terrified of being shot, that is, not for the inappropriate, but statistically predictable ways they sometimes respond to that fear.)

Aren't we just paying the price to be expected when our nation is positively awash with guns?

(Full disclosure: I personally own two handguns.)

But those who believe in the right to bear arms constantly reiterate:

a) that simply allowing people to carry guns does not increase danger, because law-abiding citizens with guns do not constitute a threat and are not going to shoot cops,

and

b) that banning guns won't help, because the criminals won't obey the law, and therefore will still have guns.

If both of these things are true—and i concede the possibility for the purpose of this discussion—then we should expect the police, just like every other person in the country, to go about their business and do it properly and professionally despite the fact that there are lots of guns in the United States.

If, like officer Groubert of South Carolina, you can't prevent yourself from shooting a person who is obeying your direct instruction because you're worried that he might be going for a gun, then man up and get a job dispensing fries or collecting bridge tolls instead of pretending that you've got what it takes to be a law enforcement officer.

Your whole position seems to suggest that, as long as we accept that this is a society of guns, we might also have to accept that cops are going to keep shooting unarmed civilians. I don't accept that.
62

I clicked, and saw an obvious and egregious abuse by cop. Thirteen months later, the innocent black (a 5-year miltary veteran) was offered a plea: year's probation with drug testing (to see if he's still abusing iced tea?), and some community service. Beatty was inclined to reject the offer at his June 2014 court date; Google showed me no update.

Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting.

I have Internet problems, and the webpage stalled after showing me the headline. Just as well: These stories make me very angry.

Oh, why aren't all Americans disgusted with such police abuse, which seems to be growing worse and worse?

I couldn't find anything on the resolution to the first link either

In the second link the video starts right after the pepper spraying. But there was a photographer who captured a bit more.

(Gah, the hamsters are currently denying me access to the quote function, so...)

mhendo: I fully agree with everything you said, except the part suggesting that I had presented a position accepting anything. I was simply pointing out an issue central to the problem we're discussing that seemed to be completely overlooked here and elsewhere.

I simply made the observation and asked a rhetorical question in an effort to advance the discussion towards one of the roots of the problem. Sadly, I have no answers to that problem - but not ignoring it is a pretty good start, I think.
64

Voltaire: "...but a fairly common denominator in these incidents are that the cops are terrified of getting shot out there."

This conclusion is based upon ... what? I'd say a very, very limited number of cops have a reasonable basis to be "terrified of getting shot". Statistically, there's no basis for this "terror" for law enforcement generally. Unfortunately, it's part of the overall persistent myth. Combined with the lack of proper temperament and basic aptitude, it's a recipe for disaster. Unfortunately, we don't assure the same level of competence these days as any average battle-trained horse of a century ago not to freak out when it hears bullets or cannon, and we don't stringently test them either. Where they are right to be nervous (not terrified) generally is of being killed in an auto accident, and particularly those who are traffic cops.

"Aren't we just paying the price to be expected when our nation is positively awash with guns?"

That's a much broader issue but, sure. Unfortunately, there's next to no undoing of it, unless indeed the government decides to "take away" guns. We can't even manage to agree on basic standards for ownership, however, so ... Most cops aren't well-trained in firearm use though they may misperceive themselves as such; as a practical matter, most humans are pretty bad shots even under controlled calm conditions, let alone in a high-stress spur of the moment situation. That cop who shot the dude at the gas station being a good example (and had his life actually been in danger, he'd merely be left to hope the guy he was shooting at was as shitty a shot). Another random one that comes to mine are the two cops that shot nine innocent bystanders in NYC a couple of years ago.
65

Voltaire: "...but a fairly common denominator in these incidents are that the cops are terrified of getting shot out there."

This conclusion is based upon ... what? I'd say a very, very limited number of cops have a reasonable basis to be "terrified of getting shot". Statistically, there's no basis for this "terror" for law enforcement generally. Unfortunately, it's part of the overall persistent myth.

That conclusion is based on the fact that nearly all of the incidents that prompted this thread were based on exactly that - cops' treating everyone as if they were about to pull a gun out on them, even when that fear is seemingly unreasonable and unlikely. (i.e. "terrified") As to your reference to statistics disproving the myth that cops have all that much to fear out there, one could argue that if they didn't act so defensively as a matter of routine, the statistics of cops getting shot might be much different.

Quote:

Combined with the lack of proper temperament and basic aptitude, it's a recipe for disaster.

That's only part of the recipe, I'm just pointing out the not-so-secret, but key ingredient people all too often completely overlook, and that you seem to completely dismiss.

Quote:

"Aren't we just paying the price to be expected when our nation is positively awash with guns?"

That's a much broader issue but, sure. Unfortunately, there's next to no undoing of it, unless indeed the government decides to "take away" guns. We can't even manage to agree on basic standards for ownership, however, so ...

Yeah, I know. By pointing out this inconvenient truth, I'm just trying to get people to fill in the blank after your ellipses. Like it or not, easy answers or not, it's a very relevant issue, IMHO. Don't shoot the messenger! 66

a) that simply allowing people to carry guns does not increase danger, because law-abiding citizens with guns do not constitute a threat and are not going to shoot cops,

and

b) that banning guns won't help, because the criminals won't obey the law, and therefore will still have guns.

Both of these things are true, precisely because a law-abiding citizen remains so until they commit the unlawful act of shooting someone. It therefore follows that they are law-abiding citizens until they are not.

In my experience police officers are not particularly worried about being shot, but my experience is that of a white male with no history of violence. I grant that they might respond differently to other people they might suspect of being violent, and they suffer from the same biases as anyone else.

It's that bias we need to work on, and I wouldn't even know where to begin.
67

It's that bias we need to work on, and I wouldn't even know where to begin.

Maybe one place to begin is to make clear that, if and when that bias expresses itself in policing tactics that treat one group of people differently from another, or results in an unreasonable abuse of authority or exercise of force, we will remove the officer from the force and also, where appropriate, press criminal charges.

And if that bias makes itself known before the officer in question actually violates anyone's rights or shoots someone dead, we thank them for their efforts and boot them back into the civilian population. This is where, as i suggested earlier in the thread, the "good cops" need to man up and be willing to call out their racist or violent or trigger-happy or bullying colleagues, and not simply stay quiet in the name of the blue wall and business as usual. If they're not actively working to improve the quality of the force, then they're part of the problem, and shouldn't whine when people include them in generalizations about asshole cops.

Police unions should get on board with this too. If the majority of cops are indeed good cops, then it should be in their own interests to see the bad ones pushed out of the profession. I wonder, in large national discussions like this, where are the conservatives who constantly hammer on the self-interested tactics of unions when those unions represent teachers or auto workers or public transit workers? They are happy to slam unions as the end of civilization for attempting to protect workers' health insurance benefits and overtime pay, but seem to have little problem with police unions when those unions go to bat for trigger-happy assholes and racists and rights violators.
68

Unbelievable story. Why the fuck would cops take the word of a thief that the methamphetamine in his possession happened to be in the car that he had stolen? Because we all know that drug users never steal to support their own habits.

I've got to believe that civil asset forfeiture greed played a part here. The cops probably thought to themselves, "Hey, we don't really believe this guy, but if his testimony gets us a search warrant, and we find any contraband in the theft victim's house, we can seize the house and keep the proceeds."

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

You already know his race.

I assume, from this comment, that you are suggesting that the victim is black? I can find no evidence that this is the case. None of the news stories mention his race, and the only two photos i've managed to find of the victim suggest that he's a white guy, albeit with a good tan in one of the images.
72

Can we also have the requisite "Over-Blown Hyperbolized Encounters In Which The Police Acted Appropriately But The Race Baiters And Recreational Ouragers Decided To Only Tell Part Of The Story To Inflame People" Thread?
75

You have an interesting idea of "executed". I wouldn't use it for someone who gets killed because they threaten police - who have a warrant - with a shotgun. Darwin award contender right there.

I think it's entirely correct. He was executed. The police kicked down his door without announcing their identity. He would have been completely within his rights, both legally and morally to kill every one of them. The cops didn't have a "no-knock" warrant (which is another thing that needs to be banned) and were operating wholly outside common sense and logic. It is their fault the homeowner is dead, and if there was anything remotely resembling justice in the state of Georgia they would all be charged with homicide.
76

Can we also have the requisite "Over-Blown Hyperbolized Encounters In Which The Police Acted Appropriately But The Race Baiters And Recreational Ouragers Decided To Only Tell Part Of The Story To Inflame People" Thread?

I don't know how the Dope appears on your computer, but on mine there is a big blue button on the top left side of the screen that says "New Thread". If you click it a window comes up with a box for the thread title, and a box under it for the content of the post. It's similar to the box that appears when you click "Reply".
77

You have an interesting idea of "executed". I wouldn't use it for someone who gets killed because they threaten police - who have a warrant - with a shotgun. Darwin award contender right there.

Congratulations for begging the very question that is at the heart of this issue: whether the homeowner even knew about the warrant. If you assume that the homeowner was informed of the warrant and had an opportunity to comply with the cops, then your scenario might make sense, but this is precisely the situation that is being contested by the man's family and his lawyer. While they might have some motivation to lie, the fact that this warrant was executed on the word of a known thief who was found with a personal quantity of meth, and then claimed that he found the meth while commiting his crime, speaks volumes for the perspicacity and analytical abilities of the cops in question. Are they friends of yours?

The problem with a warrant is that, for a civilian to accede to the conditions of the warrant, he has to be aware of its existence. I don't know about you, but if armed and camouflaged men kick in my door in the middle of the night, the first thing that would come to mind probably isn't, "They must have a warrant, so i'll let them go about their business." This is especially the case because i know that i haven't done anything that would require the police to investigate me in the first place. As the story notes, the police found no evidence of any contraband at the house of the man they gunned down. I guess he must have kept ALL of his meth in the exact place where the thief found it, right? 78

I don't know how the Dope appears on your computer, but on mine there is a big blue button on the top left side of the screen that says "New Thread". If you click it a window comes up with a box for the thread title, and a box under it for the content of the post. It's similar to the box that appears when you click "Reply".

It was a rhetorical question. Of course, nearly every one of these threads turns into the thread to which I inquired, so maybe I don't even need that blue button.
79

The problem with a warrant is that, for a civilian to accede to the conditions of the warrant, he has to be aware of its existence. I don't know about you, but if armed and camouflaged men kick in my door in the middle of the night, the first thing that would come to mind probably isn't, "They must have a warrant, so i'll let them go about their business." This is especially the case because i know that i haven't done anything that would require the police to investigate me in the first place.

This would be the case for anyone, and doubly so for a man who had just been fucking robbed and reported the theft to the police... who in the name of all that's holy would think that the armed men raiding his house would be the cops themselves?

The stupidity and incompetence on display by the police here is flabbergasting. Heads should roll, but fat chance of that.
80

The problem with a warrant is that, for a civilian to accede to the conditions of the warrant, he has to be aware of its existence. I don't know about you, but if armed and camouflaged men kick in my door in the middle of the night, the first thing that would come to mind probably isn't, "They must have a warrant, so i'll let them go about their business." This is especially the case because i know that i haven't done anything that would require the police to investigate me in the first place. As the story notes, the police found no evidence of any contraband at the house of the man they gunned down. I guess he must have kept ALL of his meth in the exact place where the thief found it, right?

I have a loaded 16 gauge pump under my side of the bed and a loaded .357 magnum S&W in the nightstand drawer. I'm generally law abiding. If our door were to be kicked in by people screaming "Police" it would likely mean I'd go to jail for the rest of my life or be killed. 83

Mitchel Shook, the attorney for the Hooks family says that this ‘tip’ should not have been enough probable cause for the sheriff’s office to issue the warrant.

Shook told WMAZ, “The drug task force and the Laurens County Sheriff’s response team arrived at David and Teresa Hooks home unannounced by emergency lights or sirens.”
He says Teresa Hooks, David’s wife, looked outside and saw people with hoods during the evening of the drug search. He says she woke her husband up, thinking the burglars were back. He says Hooks then armed himself.
Shook says there was no knock and announce, unlike what the initial release from the Sheriff’s office stated.
“The task force and the SRT members broke down the back door of the family’s home and entered, firing an excessive sixteen shots.There is no evidence that David Hooks ever fired a weapon.”

The squealers can't give a warning before they bust down a door, the bad guys might destroy evidence, or arm themselves. Going after people who use or sell drugs is more important than your right to be safe in your own home.

When the police come to search my home, with a warrant? Let them search it. If the warrant isn't valid, sue them and live comfortably for the rest of my life. You don't get to threaten cops with a shotgun just because you know you're innocent.

Or is the claim that these were undercover cops in civilian clothing? There's nothing in the article to suggest that.
87

Yeah, I've been at least somewhat "on the side" of the cops in some of these recent threads, and I have nothing at all to say in their defense in this situation (assuming that what we're hearing is even remotely what actually happened). Whoever made the key decisions leading to that tragedy should face very serious consequences (arguably up to jail time, not sure what the precedent is for things like that), and I hope the widow successfully sues the CRAP out of the police department.
89

When the police come to search my home, with a warrant? Let them search it. If the warrant isn't valid, sue them and live comfortably for the rest of my life. You don't get to threaten cops with a shotgun just because you know you're innocent.

Or is the claim that these were undercover cops in civilian clothing? There's nothing in the article to suggest that.

Knowing myself to be law abiding, I would assume someone battering down my door is not officer friendly and do my damnedest to empty my weapon.

ETA: in fact, when I applied for my concealed carry permit my cop-buddy taught me, among other things, to do just that. We did simulations and all, including emptying a handgun into a target moving toward me in dim light (at an indoor range equipped to do that).
90

To make something clear, if there was any wrongdoing here, it was by the judge that issued the warrant, not the police. They were doing their job. The anger here is misplaced.

Assuming that it was the judge who decided that (a) there should be a warrant in the first place based on nothing but testimony from a known thief, and (b) crucially, that it should be a no-knock warrant, then I agree entirely (assuming that the cops are legally required to serve the warrant given to them in the fashion that the warrant demands).

Deciding that there's any point to searching that guy's house at all is a BAD decision (again, given the information that we as observers have). Deciding that they should serve that warrant by sneaking up in camouflage and busting down the door with no warning is a TERRIBLE decision. Literally a fatal one.
91

Authorities have said that Hooks came to the door of his home with a shotgun after deputies serving a drug search warrant knocked on the door and repeatedly announced, “sheriff’s department, search warrant.”

Hooks allegedly pointed the gun at the deputies, who ordered him to put it down. Instead he pointed the gun at deputies in a more aggressive manner, authorities said.

Why is it that the retards always cherry-pick their sources for the information that best supports their predispositions?

Your article also says:

Quote:

Hooks retrieved a gun and headed out of the bedroom as the officers broke down the back door, Shook said. He said Hooks was not wounded at the door but behind a wall in his house.

“They may have seen him with a weapon, but it appears at that point in time it was chaos,” Shook said. “They were shooting everywhere. There’s a lot more to it than law enforcement has reported.”

I'm willing to accept that it might have happened like the cops say it did, and that Mrs. Hooks's story is inaccurate, but until the investigation happens i'm not willing to discount the possibility that the story being told by the cops might not be completely accurate either.

And this is precisely the problem with the defend-cops-at-all-costs morons. They assume the very thing that needs to be questioned in cases like this: that the cops are always the ones telling the truth when shit goes wrong. If Mrs. Hooks is, indeed, telling the truth about how it went down, then the cops involved have a clear motivation to lie.

There are times when it might make sense to assume that the cops are the ones we should believe, but a bunch of cops who wanted a warrant for a late-night search based on the lies of a meth-carrying thief who had actually stolen from the very person he was incriminating are not the sort of law-enforcement officers who inspire a lot of confidence.
93

Deciding that there's any point to searching that guy's house at all is a BAD decision (again, given the information that we as observers have). Deciding that they should serve that warrant by sneaking up in camouflage and busting down the door with no warning is a TERRIBLE decision. Literally a fatal one.

Exactly.

This, by the way, is a perfect argument for making ALL cops wear body cameras. They've started doing it in a bunch of commands here in San Diego, and they're expanding the program. In an age when every second teenager carries around a hi-def camera in his or her smartphone, we should mandate that our law enforcement officers have one on during all encounters, especially ones like this where they go in with guns drawn.

If they have cameras on, we know what happened. They didn't, so we now have only the word of multiple cops against a woman who saw her husband gunned down in front of her in his own home. And i don't trust them enough not to lie if it's in their own interests.

All states should pass laws requiring body cameras. Make police departments pay for it out of all that civil asset forfeiture money they steal.
95

This, by the way, is a perfect argument for making ALL cops wear body cameras.

The cops in my city (Laurel, MD) have started wearing lapel cameras in the last year. Heard a report on the news that since then, they've seen a 60% drop in complaints. I posted about my own bad brush with a Laurel PD officer a few weeks ago. There is little chance that shit would have happened if she knew she was being recorded, but if it did happen, I would feel that much more empowered to file a complaint because I would feel secure in the knowledge the tape would back me up. Currently all kinds of messed up interactions probably occur that never get reported because people assume the system will always take the word of a cop over theirs. Cameras even the playing field.

The more these stories get attention, the more pressure there will be for police to wear body cameras. I'm hoping that after a certain point, police departments will not be about to defend not having body cameras, because of the message that sends. Police reports consistently fail to tell the whole story or even truthful stories, which means they are increasingly becoming worthless in the court of public opinion. I welcome the day when we're no longer stuck with just their biased accounts of what happened; we can just look at the tape and see for ourselves what went down.
96

Steophan, I don't know how SWAT equivalent works in the UK, but SWAT does not knock and announce BEFORE entering a home (also, there may have been uniformed deputies on-site, but they wouldn't be the ones to breach the house). Someone might or might not whisper "police", or even say it in a normal tone of voice as they're breaching a structure, but that's if they care at all about whether it's a no-knock warrant. You've been watching too much television, perhaps (unfortunately, television is from where most people learn about the law and so many other things). Whether the action is being filmed by the unit or beknownst to the unit will also affect decisions on protocol.

"Steophan: "It wasn't a no-knock warrant, and the police announced themselves."

Under the circumstances, I'd rather you say "according to the police department, [SWAT] announced themselves." It's best to be more circumspect.

"If the warrant isn't valid, sue them and live comfortably for the rest of my life."

This is yet another item that leads me to believe that you're not well-informed about how the law works, particularly insofar as law enforcement actions are concerned. Most people make declarations based on what they're convinced they know, or at least how things should be, and that's unfortunately normal.*

A warrant not being "valid" (whatever that means to you) doesn't give rise to a viable lawsuit ... not in the legal system as is. If SWAT is called to your home in the U.S. based on bogus or unreliable information due to the fact that law enforcement chose not to actually commence an investigation, a person will learn the hard way that they have no legal obligation to investigate (they are free, as here, to act on assertions of someone the police had arrested a few hours before for stealing from the person who would up dead). Of course, if such an assertion were made by a meth addict who'd stolen a prosecutor, judge or cop's SUV or broken into such a person's house, you can bet your ass that no one would sign off on a raid.

So whatever dreams one may have of "liv[ing] comfortably for the rest of [his/her] life", please understand that the person'd be better off spending a lot of dough on buying lottery tickets.

* On another board, some dude who just got fired in Texas was railing on about his rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" which, I gather to him, also meant that his employer wasn't entitled to fire him based on "right to work". He didn't understand that this meant he couldn't be forced to join a union, not that he had some constitutional right to a job. He, like most Americans, don't understand that the Declaration of Independence from England was one thing, and the Constitution quite another.
97

As you may know from my previous posts in other threads, I am not anti-cop. Perhaps that's a bit of an understatement. Anyway, here's they type of story that is embarrassing for those wear a badge with honor. I have absolutely no time for crooked cops or those that abuse their authority. I'm am just making the point that I am well aware that there are problem cops and don't defend them all reflexively. I would only ask that the anti-cop people not reflexively assume that the cops are always wrong.

ST's vBulletin 3 Responsive Styles

Our newly refreshed styles in 2017, brings the old vb3 to the new level, responsive and modern feel. It comes with 3 colors with or without sidebar, fixed sized or fluid. Default vbulletin 3 style made responsive also available in the pack.
Purchase Our Style Pack Now